Bitcoin Forum

Recently, I came over 2 Legendary Alt accounts (not yet tagged, I'll present my evidence tomorrow) and noticed that they had applied simultaneously for the same signature campaign. One account was accepted and one account was rejected.

Now my question: enrolling two accounts at the same campaign is clearly a red trust but is it also red trust for trying to enroll two accounts at the same signature campaign?

In my opinion, it's a difficult decision. Finally, these 2 accounts didn't participate because only one was accepted but the important point is: what would have happened, if both accounts were accepted? For the Alt Account owner, there could have been different reactions:
- the Alt account owner posts a reply: "Hello, SIR! I have applied multiple accounts here. To follow the rules, I will only enroll account ..., for the other spot, you can take another applicant" => extremely unlikely => probably no punishment?
- just enroll one account and the other account gets silent = > possible => probably no punishment?
- enroll both accounts => likely => taggable offense

It's another question if the outcome matters (finally enrolling both accounts) and it's only a question if there was any possible malicious intent (trying to enroll 2 Alt Accounts at the same signature campaign).

---

tl;dr
Would such a behaviour (trying to enroll 2 Alt Accounts at the same signature campaign) result in red trust or only a neutral trust for linking Alt Accounts? What's DT's opinion?

Does the campaign have a rule against enrolling multiple accounts?

If not, no problem..

Users get red trust for it for breaking campaign rules, not simply for having multiple accounts in one campaign..

There was no special rule for Alt accounts but there were other participants also enrolling Alt Accounts and they got a negative Trust from the Bounty Manager (someone I would consider one of the most reliable managers here) for enrolling Alts in that campaign.

Edit: Campaign was Byteball Signature Camapaign managed by yahoo62278: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1760807.0

Recently I am in campaign management. In a campaign if I ask, "no alt account can be enrolled, only one account" but later if I find that someone enrolled more than one account - it does not matter if I accept one account or more than one account that they enrolled, I will take it as an offence of my rules and if there is something said that it will be tagged then I will likely tag the account.

If there are no rules about enrolling or accepting alt (more than one account) then there are no need to tag but here again, I will not want anyone to reserve more than one spot in any campaign I manage.

I am not sure about other guys but would like to hear their thoughts in it.

Edit: There could be a scope of making mistakes and if it found out that it was a genuine mistake from the member then maybe I would give them a chance before tagging for the Alt rule of my campaign.

Yeah, I don't know if it was a thing back in 2017 that such a rule needs to be mentioned in the signature campaign rules or it was simply an unwritten forum standard to refuse from enrolling 2 or more accounts in the same signature campaign and if someone did it against forum standards, he received negative trust.
On the other hand we could say: maybe it's only allowed to enroll multiple accounts in the campaign, if the rules say explicitly: multiple accounts are allowed. If no further rules are stated, unwritten forum standards are applied?  ???

You have a point here.

I guess it's the manager's choice. If some other tags the user and if they (the victim in this case) convince the manager that it was not written in the campaign rule, so they took the chance. Considering this if the manager thinks it's fine to give him the benefit of the doubt then he can request the person who tagged the user to remove the tag. However, The person who tagged the victim is not in any condition that they will have to listen the manager's suggestion.

This is how I am looking at this case now, it's my own personal interpretation by the way.

It’s no unwritten rule..
It’s pretty simple, if the campaign does not say “no alts allowed”, then Alts ARE allowed..

No tag.. If yahoo forgot to insert the rule that’s his fault..

Edit: Holy shit this happened in 2017??
What are you doing? Digging for dirt on this legendary(s) specifically, or just looking for anything, even ancient, to tag users for?


Yahoo tagged others for breaking a rule that wasn’t even a rule?
He should remove those tags..

Sounds reasonable.

---

DT is based mostly on community standards / unwritten rules.  ;)


Because his feedbacks are based on community standards? If abusing bounties with multiple accounts was a problem back then, then tagging accounts which were abusing it makes totally sense. I'm still following the point of view that participating with multiple accounts is only ok if it's mentioned explicitly in the signature campaign rules. Because if someone would allow multiple accounts, the campaign would be messy. That's why most likely rules didn't include "multiple alts are not allowed" because it was simply a forum standard.
At least for me that would make sense.

I asked hilariousandco's advice about this very question a year or two ago, and if I recall correctly he told me that regardless of whether it's stated in the campaign rules, enrolling multiple accounts in the same campaign is a tag-able offense.  And as far as I know, it's been a rule in all of Yahoo62278's campaigns and pretty much every other one as well.

I'd like to remind you that scamming isn't against the rules here.  Members can and should be tagged for certain things that don't necessarily violate forum or campaign rules--there's sometimes a gap between written rules and community standards.  Always has been, probably always will be.

Well I disagree, go 2017 tag happy all you guys want though, lol.. Have fun..

Also, yahoo is a shit example as far as someone to look up to for someone who upholds high community standards, wellbeing, and morality, especially when it’s financially convenient..

I'd need to know the basis for calling them alts. If it was something that happened and ended in 2017, I would just leave it be. You'd want to be awfully sure that your evidence is correct before going after a Legendary (or two) for something that happened (or didn't even actually happen) four years ago.

Evidence for alts is very clear but the accounts are not popular (pre-Merit era "Legendary"). Since it's only about trying to enroll alts and no real abuse happened, I'll most likely keep it at neutral trust anyway (also depending on the users reaction) only for being alts and a short remark about applying with multiple accounts in the same signature campaign at once.

2017, the community is not too flooded in this forum, the campaign rules are not too strict in this forum, one person only manages one, the Btc paid sig campaign is not very popular, Bounty promised tokens at that time.

Now it has entered 2021, (5) years difference, the forum is known to all corners, one person can control 5-10 accounts and register in the campaign, the economy is deteriorating, Needs are increasing, forums are some of their main income, alternative Btc sig-paid campaign solutions, no wonder managers apply the rules: Register an Alt account, not allowed, if you do negative above your head. The bottom line: other members can participate in promoting the campaign, fair.

Let's try to target Alt accounts that register in this new era campaign in 2021, forget about the 2017 era campaign, maybe it's more professional.

---

@nutildah, did it that time in the campaign: Chip-M, Suspect Fall, 5-10 other members enjoyed the results of the CM campaign, until now.

Nothing is wrong, a new era: negative beliefs are right.

Contrary to eddie and his opinions I think I have always had the forums best interest in mind when it comes to campaigns. Moving on to something that happened in 2017, I think time has run out for tagging anyone for something they did back then. If they were tagged back then. then it is fine.

Personally, enrolling with multiple accounts to the same campaign in hopes 1 is selected is still attempting to cheat said campaign. Choose the best account and apply. If your best account doesn't get in, there should be no way a lesser account would make it.

A user can also pm a manager and let them know hey these are all my accounts, give a link to all accounts, and ask if any of them can be accepted. It is not forbidden to have multiple accounts, so it shouldn't result in a tag if done in that way.

I don't know what the problem is. If the manager allows alternatives to participate, and it is interpreted that there is no specific rule in the terms, I will not argue and simply state that the accounts are alternatives.
If there are strictly defined rules and accounts are still signed by all alternative profiles, then this is a hoax. The negative tag should stand and deservedly. You should not consider yourself smarter and more cunning. This is a society with its own rules that must be followed.
But if we talk about old stories, then you can just close your eyes. Execution is important here and now. Just leave neutral feedback.
I also sometimes notice that many of the old accounts change ownership. But even in this case, putting a negative tag is too cruel without clear evidence.

My opinion: when in doubt, use neutral feedback:

This is my point of view. Using multiple accounts to apply is cheating, particularly if it violates the campaign rules.
It's similar to taking part in a competition with multiple applications. Whether or not both accounts win the competition, it is still unfair to the other participants.

As yahoo62278 suggested, a better solution is to communicate with the manager via the PM. And if you don't want to expose the link between your alt accounts, don't apply in the same campaigns.

So iif I am getting it right, you can never be removed in a campaign or you can join a campaign if you let the manager know about you having an alt account, most campaigns though have a rule that says that if an alt was found out then they are removed.

If the participants do not break the campaign rules, then I do not agree to tag either manager willingly removed rules about enrolling in an alt account or forgot to add the rules. As a campaign manager, I am not accepting alt account in my campaigns, so I clearly state that in campaign rules. In such as case, if the participants break the rules, I have mentioned there the question account would be tagged by me. So, in this case, even a neutral tag isn't appropriate since there were no rules about enrolling alt account.

Giving a negative trust for this case completely depends on the campaign manager and the rules of the campaign as mentioned above. However, if someone has been long enough on this forum to become a legendary account, they would definitely know it is WRONG to participate in the signature campaigns with alt accounts. I mean they wouldn't really resemble a good contributing member to the forum, right?

As a penalty, if I was the campaign manager I'd ban them from participating in my campaigns for a few months or expect them to publicly apologize?

That was also my current approach, of course also depending on how his reaction will be for exposing his alts / his double application.

---

I would say that totally depends on each Campaign Manager. For the comment above, yahoo62278 mentioned that before joining a campaign, a user can ask via PM which of his accounts would have the best chance to apply and get accepted. But if everyone starts doing this, the Campaign Manager would have much more work, so don't take it granted to get an advice. If you have that much alt accounts that you don't know which account will have the best chances, it's not the Campaign Manager's problem.


The rule is about only one account per participant or better described as "no multiple accounts allowed to enroll in this signature campaign". Lets say I'm an alt account from LoyceV, and the signature campaign is "shitcoin bets.com", so it's only allowed to enroll 1miau or LoyceV account in "shitcoin bets.com" signature campaign.
It doesn't matter if you enroll your alt or your main account, but it has to be only 1 account for this campaign.

That's not my point though, what I am trying to say is that if the manager knows that you have an alt, that means that they can accept you without the worry of being flagged by DT for alt accounts.

Imma PM him for clarification on this opinion..


Running campaigns to advertise blatant yobit scams and hiring spammers in order based on how much they will bump project ANNs and shill the project across the forum any chance they get (against forum rules)..
How scrupulous..

I don't believe I said this or you may have misinterpreted what I said. It's 100% not against the forum rules. As far as theymos or the mods are concerned you could have 100 accounts on the same campaign just as long as they're not shitposting en masse. I may have said something along the lines of the community often deems it a tagable offence. Personally I would think it's basically a terms of service violation of the campaign if it states only one person and if people want to tag people for it I wouldn't make an argument against that but I don't believe it's a crime either.

I don't see any reason to tag someone for applying with several alts in one campaign, if it's against the rules of the campaign or not. Just add them to your blacklist if you want or as someone else suggested in this thread - neutral tag, would and probably should be enough.

I think The Pharmacist was also referring to community standards here, not directly to violations of forum rules.
Some might give a red tag, some might not give a red tag because each DT member has a different point of view regarding that issue.

This seems another reasonable response to me.
Making them blacklisted and not making much talk about it could be a best practice too.

However, in some cases managers mention that enrolling alt will result in negative tag. And after seeing this rule if anyone still enrol more than one account then tagging the account is fair as well.

There are some people on the forum who wish every Legendary or Hero member to be tagged and they will not spare any single incident to enforce a red tag  :D  
I don't know about this mentally, maybe its hard to rank Legendary and some low ranked members didn't like old Legendries enjoy the privilege they gained at the time when forum had no merits.